That women should not be banned from Social Media for asking the question ( Thread 4)

[Langrycleg]

Many women have been suspended from sm for asking the question:

“Do you believe that male sexed people should be allowed access to changing rooms and showers for female sexed people and teenagers?”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable question which we should be allowed to ask.

Let’s vote with our AIBU.

jj - you can say the word 'consent' in relation to lots of different scenarios which are not really relevant here but the fact remains that it is written in law that all males can lawfully be excluded from female single sex spaces, where women will be undressed, sleeping or otherwise vulnerable and single sex facilities where it is proportional to achieve a legitimate aim on a TYPE OF SPACE OR FACILITY basis so ALL rape shelters, ALL female hospital wards etc.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make with that post but it doesn't change the law, however much you and Stonewall etc would like it changed, either democratically or by the back door - they don't seem bothered.

I'm still waiting for some evidence that transwomen are in more danger than any other vulnerable group using the men's toilets - teenagers or small camp men - we haven't seen any yet.

I'm also still waiting for any evidence that transwomen are any less likely to be sexual predators than any other member of their sex group( the sex group that commits 99% of all sex offences)

But it's reasonable to expect to be imprisoned with people of your own sex.

It is. It's part of international human rights law, even in the Geneva Convention

In any camps in which women prisoners of war, as well as men, are accommodated, separate dormitories shall be provided for them.

Do you truly believe that there is no reason for anything at all ever to be based on sex? Do you really believe that the differences between the sexes are so trivial to never need different spaces or provision of different services or different sporting categories?

Trans ideology utterly relies on things being segregated by sex. And a select few of one sex been included in that of the other.

If everything was mixed sex, this select few would not be select anymore.

As previously mentioned, the space is meaningless. If all the women left the space, the space would be defunct. The new women's space, is only appealing, because of the women in it.

If everything was mixed sex, the validation would disappear.

As fasted says her step child needs the space to be representative of women, otherwise it doesn't work.

The space isn't the resource. The women and girls in it are.

you can say the word 'consent' in relation to lots of different scenarios which are not really relevant here but the fact remains that it is written in law that all males can lawfully be excluded from female single sex spaces, where women will be undressed, sleeping or otherwise vulnerable and single sex facilities where it is proportional to achieve a legitimate aim on a TYPE OF SPACE OR FACILITY basis so ALL rape shelters, ALL female hospital wards etc.

When proportionate and legitimate. And it is up to those who manage the space to decide whether to choose to use the exemptions or not. So take M&S changing rooms for example. They are single cubicles and so as per EHRC guidance it would probably be illegal to exclude a trans woman. In addition to that M&S are perfectly free to admit trans women into their changig rooms if that is what they want to do. They can have mixed changing rooms if they want - as log as cubicles were private that would almost certainly be within the law. Or they can have no changing facilities at all - the most likely outcome of any law tightening around single sex spaces. Consent has been gained by both the law and the rights of the property owner/leaser to make decisions about what happens in that property. If you don't like it you don't have to go in them. But it is not a consent violation.

Trans ideology utterly relies on things being segregated by sex. And a select few of one sex been included in that of the other.

If everything was mixed sex, this select few would not be select anymore

YY, exactly Datun

. "If you don't like it you don't have to go in them. But it is not a consent violation."

Males putting women in their place yet again.

@334bu

. "If you don't like it you don't have to go in them. But it is not a consent violation."

Males putting women in their place yet again.

Well yes, if you don't like gay people don't go to a gay bar. If you don't like Muslims don't go to a mosque. If you don't like being around trans people don't go to a trans inclusive business.

When proportionate and legitimate.

Indeed.

And thankfully Marks & Spencers' policy is becoming more well-known.

So much so, that they have finally removed the reviews from creepy men about their knickers.

The more women understand the law, the more they feel they can stand up for themselves.

And it's threads like these, and arguments like yours, which contribute to that.

I'm also still waiting for any evidence that transwomen are any less likely to be sexual predators than any other member of their sex group( the sex group that commits 99% of all sex offences)

Good luck with that.

It wasn't something done spur of the moment because I couldn't be bothered taking her phone away that day, it was a descion made after literally years of consultations with endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, gender specialists etc.

That's interesting - a very different experience to that of Keira Bell, for example, who said she wasn't given any proper psychological assessment before being prescribed Puberty Blockers.

Why not say "unisex" rather than trans inclusive?

I think there is a difference between trans inclusive and gender discriminatory, and most of what you want is unisex with gender discriminatory

Mixed sex.

And, by the way, the phrase is a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

The legitimate end is making women and girls, their core customer base, comfortable in their changing rooms.

And a proportionate means is to provide an alternative changing room which does not rely on women and girls being in it.

It's really not much of a drama.

So women get out of public life !! It was ever thus

@lifeturnsonadime

Fasted

You said earlier that your SD has never felt like she fitted in, yet you have said she was voted Head Girl by her peers?

Mmmmm

You think girls who don't want to share safe spaces with males need therapy.

You don't care whose rights men trample on, doesn't matter if they are vulnerable women and girls. You just don't care about girls.

This is not just about your SD it's about the fact that you believe that men's rights trump ours. I see you.

I've never said she hasn't fitted in. She unequivocally has always fitted in, it's never been a social problem. I do think a lack of social connection could be a contributing factor in the boom of teenage girls identifying as trans without a history of gd though.

If everything was mixed sex, the validation would disappear. As fasted says her step child needs the space to be representative of women, otherwise it doesn't work. The space isn't the resource. THE WOMEN AND GIRLS IN IT ARE. (My block capitals)

This is so true and so clearly put.

@midgedude

Why not say "unisex" rather than trans inclusive?

I think there is a difference between trans inclusive and gender discriminatory, and most of what you want is unisex with gender discriminatory

Because there is clearly a qualititative difference between the two. Unisex is likely to be 50% males presenting visibly as men. Trans inclusive is likely to be 99.8% women identified females and 0.2% female presenting trans women.

You can throw your hands up in mock stupidity and say there is literally no difference between the two but anyone who has actually used a trans inclusive women's toilet - which is all of you - is well aware that's not the case in practice.

female presenting trans women.

What is this?

Sorry I see this quite clearly

Unisex definition does not have a limit .. things are not single sex provided only x% of the other sex use it

Jj do you really not understand the visceral reaction many woman have to a male deliberately imposing themself in her space? Do you not understand that?

Do you not understand that there are hardly any women who would turn out and say excuse me, I'm not comfortable can you leave?

Do you know why?

Is there another thread?

Honestly, your determination to subjugate is off the scale. Name-calling, guilt tripping, minimising.

The answer is no.

No.

And, by the way, the phrase is a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

The legitimate end is making women and girls, their core customer base, comfortable in their changing rooms.

And a proportionate means is to provide an alternative changing room which does not rely on women and girls being in it.

It's really not much of a drama.

Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable way to fulfil the requirement. And if women's feelings and established rights were considered, there wouldn't be any quibbling about that as a "reasonable adjustment" in the same way that an old building with stairs doesn't have to put in a lift if the cost is prohibitively expensive, even though that will be a barrier for people with mobility issues. They may be expected to put in a ramp to the ground floor. This is a reasonable adjustment.